Is the KJB banned?

[Scoobert]

Is the King James Version banned by the Catholic Church? Are Catholics forbidden to use it? Let an apologist answer this question

 

[Jerusha]

No, it is not banned. Some things are mistranslated. You can use it if nothing else is available. It is not much different from the Douay-Rheims, except the DR has the Deuterocanon, the books that the Protestants do not accept.

 

[Corki]

Is the King James Version banned by the Catholic Church? Are Catholics forbidden to use it? Let an apologist answer this question

If you want an apologist to answer, you would have more luck posting your question in the “Ask An Apologist” thread.

Catholics are not forbidden from using the KJB for personal reading. It is an incomplete Bible (unless it includes the deuterocanonical books) and, depending on the edition, the notes may be problematic.

For public worship, Catholic Churches and groups must use an approved translation.

 

[Third_Day]

Some of the translations of the KJ are great for Catholic teaching such as Acts 1:20 where it says the apostles held the office of bishop. It can’t get any more Catholic than that.

 

[Suetonius]

KJV is the worst translation, it convinced people that Lucifer, Antichrist, Jude, James, Joses are Actual Biblical Characters, whom all never appear in the Originals.

All this wierd anti-christ/Lucifer satanic stuff are all by-products of the stupidity KJV

king JAMES inserted his own name, as brother of Jesus, read the actual name in Greek, its Jacobus, absolute no linguistic connection between James and Jacob

 

[StevenFrancis]

Is the King James Version banned by the Catholic Church? Are Catholics forbidden to use it? Let an apologist answer this question

I wrote for nearly 20 minutes on this subject, then noticed it was for answer by an authorized apologist only. ;-(

Hope you get a good answer. Just for what it’s worth, it is my understanding that it is not at least currently banned by the Church for private use. It is certainly not appropriate or approved for Catholic liturgical purposes, however.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[jmoneyideas]

Luke 6:1 in kjb it says the word corn. Wow corn was not even around in new testament times…bad translation.

 

[rossum]

Luke 6:1 in kjb it says the word corn. Wow corn was not even around in new testament times…bad translation.

In English English ‘corn’ is wheat. The American version is called maize or, sometimes, indian corn. In this case the KJV is correct (and US English isn’t )

I can confirm that the KJV is not allowed for use in Catholic services. A Catholic friend’s widow wanted to use the KJV version of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 at his funeral. It wasn’t allowed, and the approved translation was nowhere near as good. Eventually she used another text. A pity, because the language of the KJV is superb.

rossum

 

[Miriam1947]

In English English ‘corn’ is wheat. The American version is called maize or, sometimes, indian corn. In this case the KJV is correct (and US English isn’t )

I can confirm that the KJV is not allowed for use in Catholic services. A Catholic friend’s widow wanted to use the KJV version of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 at his funeral. It wasn’t allowed, and the approved translation was nowhere near as good. Eventually she used another text. A pity, because the language of the KJV is superb.

rossum

She could have used the DR version. Or maybe the RSV. That’s what the Pope uses.

 

[jmoneyideas]

In English English ‘corn’ is wheat. The American version is called maize or, sometimes, indian corn. In this case the KJV is correct (and US English isn’t )

I can confirm that the KJV is not allowed for use in Catholic services. A Catholic friend’s widow wanted to use the KJV version of Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 at his funeral. It wasn’t allowed, and the approved translation was nowhere near as good. Eventually she used another text. A pity, because the language of the KJV is superb.

rossum

I stand corrected…thanks…

 

[x1980x]

… It is not much different from the Douay-Rheims, except the DR has the Deuterocanon, the books that the Protestants do not accept.

Not true. The KJV DOES have the Deuterocanon (and puts it under the section called “Apocrypha”). The issue is that most PRINTINGS of the KJV omit it, but the true, full KJV DOES have all those books, plus 1 and 2 Esdras.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is the King James Version banned by the Catholic Church? Are Catholics forbidden to use it? Let an apologist answer this question

no and no
if you want an apologist to answer you should also post on AAA, or search to see if it has been answered their before

 

[Zenas]

Not true. The KJV DOES have the Deuterocanon (and puts it under the section called “Apocrypha”). The issue is that most PRINTINGS of the KJV omit it, but the true, full KJV DOES have all those books, plus 1 and 2 Esdras.

I wish you lots of luck finding one with the Deuterocanon. In fact, if you know of a source I wish you would pm me with it. None of the major publishers of the KJV include it any more.

 

[patrick457]

KJV is the worst translation, it convinced people that Lucifer, Antichrist, Jude, James, Joses are Actual Biblical Characters, whom all never appear in the Originals.

All this wierd anti-christ/Lucifer satanic stuff are all by-products of the stupidity KJV

Source?

king JAMES inserted his own name, as brother of Jesus, read the actual name in Greek, its Jacobus, absolute no linguistic connection between James and Jacob

Nuh-uh. The English James comes from Late French, which in turn came from a variant of Latin Iacobus (from Greek Iakobos, in turn from Hebrew Yaqob): Iacomus, which is likely a result of nasalization of the o and assimilation to the following b, and a simplification of the cluster -mb- in the resulting variant (‘Iacombus’) through loss of the b. Note the same phenomenon in Italian Giacomo, Catalan Xaume/Jaume, Friulian Jacum, Galician Xaime, Irish and Scottish Seumas/Seamus/Sheumais/Hamish, Manx Jayms, Occitan Jacme/Jaume/Jammes/James (all pronounced as Jamme), and Spanish and Portuguese Jaime.

 

[Miriam1947]

I wish you lots of luck finding one with the Deuterocanon. In fact, if you know of a source I wish you would pm me with it. None of the major publishers of the KJV include it any more.

My niece just bought one for my sister. I have no idea where she got it but, I congratulated her on having all the books in the Bible.

I am the only Catholic in the family.

 

[Suetonius]

Source?

Nuh-uh. The English James comes from Late French, which in turn came from a variant of Latin Iacobus (from Greek Iakobos, in turn from Hebrew Yaqob): Iacomus, which is likely a result of nasalization of the o and assimilation to the following b, and a simplification of the cluster -mb- in the resulting variant (‘Iacombus’) through loss of the b. Note the same phenomenon in Italian Giacomo, Catalan Xaume/Jaume, Friulian Jacum, Galician Xaime, Irish and Scottish Seumas/Seamus/Sheumais/Hamish, Manx Jayms, Occitan Jacme/Jaume/Jammes/James (all pronounced as Jamme), and Spanish and Portuguese Jaime.

So why isn’t Jacob son of Isaac not called James son of Isaac, its a bluff, King James deliberately used his own name, Jacob and James are utter different.

Antichrist

1 John 2:22 KJV
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denieth the Father and the Son.

should be

1 John 2:22 Personal Translation
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is against Christ who denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 2:18 KJV
Little children, it is the last time. And as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that this is the last time

1 John 2:18 Personal Translation, more precise
Little children, it is the last time. And as ye have heard those Against the Christ shall come, even now are there many Against Christ , whereby we know that this is the last time

–Correct Translation crushed the antichrist

Lucifer
Isaiah 14:12 KJV - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, who didst weaken the nations!

Lucifer is a Roman Goddess, no reason to appear in there

Jude = Judas
Joses = Joseph

 

[Zenkai]

I wish you lots of luck finding one with the Deuterocanon. In fact, if you know of a source I wish you would pm me with it. None of the major publishers of the KJV include it any more.

They’re easy to find. Just look for “1611 KJV”. It’s available at Barnes&Boble, Amazon, etc.

 

[Erinaceus]

So why isn’t Jacob son of Isaac not called James son of Isaac, its a bluff, King James deliberately used his own name, Jacob and James are utter different.

You were given a detailed etymology of the name “James”, which derived from the same Hebrew word as Jacob. You swept that detailed explanation by a quick broom under the rug. Why then, is there a distinction between Joshua and Jesus (the same Hebrew word)?

It was King James who most likely was named after the apostle James or James the epistle writer, and not vice versa. Read the history of the translation. King James’ role was only a grudging approval for a new (then) translation. Just before then, English translators had not ended up well. The interesting fact is that everyone talks about KJB, while D-R had been an earlier translation that in many respects influenced KJB translators (although it was not acknowledged by them in the preface). I’ve read it somewhere, can’t remember the source now. It is possible that there were a number of considerations for the choice between Jacob/James variants. 1. To separate important people without mistranslating them (patriarch versus an apostle). 2. It is also possible that they wanted to garner favor at the same time from the ruling sovereign at the time.

=====
As to the “source” of a KJV with “Apocrypha.” I have this one in my Kindle collection.

 

[Erinaceus]

They’re easy to find. Just look for “1611 KJV”. It’s available at Barnes&Boble, Amazon, etc.

Be careful, searching for 1611 KJV unless you are indeed looking for the 1611 KJV. The KJV we know now is a revision from 1700’s. I have the 1611 one from the same publisher and it is no easy reading.

Here is the 1611 spelling from the book’s description: “John 3:16 as it was printed in 1611: Iohn 3.16 ¶ For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

No, it is not banned. Some things are mistranslated. You can use it if nothing else is available. It is not much different from the Douay-Rheims, except the DR has the Deuterocanon, the books that the Protestants do not accept.

Just FYI: the 1611 KJV and all subsequent editions had the same books we all have. It wasn’t until 1885 that an American publisher removed them from his edition. The Crown still, afaik, insists the KJV in Britain be published in it’s entirety.

I like it, BTW, along with the other translations I have.